maryhelena

Earl - try reading aa sometime - you just might learn something...:banghead:

Vorkosigan

No, it's not from dating manuscripts. It's from the internal evidence of the Pauline epistles and Gospel texts. They date themselves by references to historical events, by their vocabulary, by what other texts they parallel, and similar. Are you not aware of this?

Further, many individuals who look at the gospel of mark think that the writer knows some of the pauline epistles. That is not generally accepted, however.

Vorkosigan

MrMacSon

"the Pauline epistles and Gospel texts" are allegedly dated by "references to alleged historical events, by their vocabulary, by what other texts they allegedly parallel, and similar."

maryhelena

The internal evidence of the gospel JC story and of 'Paul's' story re historical events? And these historical events place the 'Paul' story before the JC story??

OK - lets have the historical events from the gospel JC story and the 'Paul' story set down.....

aa5874

I find your reply to be rather strange. You very well know that I have NEVER stated that I am a Scholar.

Now, as I have stated before Complexity is the Sum of Simplicity.

I am here PRECISELY to SIMPLIFY not to complicate.

You very well know that Scholars have put forward the notion that the Pauline writings were ALL after the Fall of the Temple, after c 70 CE so it is of very little use to even suggest that people who agree with Scholars are amateurs.

There are amateurs who agree with you that Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar so I don't know why other amateurs cannot agree with other Scholars who disagree with you.

My position is SOLID. My position is NOT complicated.

ALL the Pauline letters are AFTER the Fall of the Temple and AFTER the earliest Canonised Gospel gMark.

1. The author of the Short-Ending gMark did NOT use a single word-for word sentence from the Pauline letters.

2. The author of the Short-Ending gMark [segMark] showed NO awareness that Jesus was crucified as a Sacrifice.

3. The author of segMark showed NO awareness that without the resurrection of Jesus that there would be No Salvation.

4. The author of segMark showed NO awareness that his Jesus was a Universal Savior.

5. The author of segMark showed NO awareness that his Jesus was the End of the LAW.

6. The Pauline writer claimed he was a Persecutor of the Faith.

7. The Pauline writer met characters found in the Gospels.

8. The Pauline writer claimed he received information from a resurrected Jesus but it is ACTUALLY found ONLY in gLuke.

9. The Pauline writer claimed there were written sources that Jesus died FOR OUR SINS-buried and resurrected on the THIRD day--these claims are NOT found in Hebrew Scripture but in the Gospels.

10. segMark ENDS at the resurrection and the Pauline writer SAW Jesus after the resurrection.

11. The Pauline writer claimed that there were people in Christ before him.

12. In segMark, on the day Jesus died there were NO persons called Christians.

13. In segMark, up to the day Jesus died he did NOT START any new religion.

14. In segMark, Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted.

15. In segMark, Jesus did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ.

16. Apologetic sources claim the Pauline writer was aware of gLuke.

17. Apologetic sources up to the mid 2nd century was NOT aware of the Pauline letters.

18. The author of Acts did NOT state Paul wrote any letters.

19. Letters to place Paul before c 70 CE turn out to be forgeries.

20. The Pauline letters contains events that are only found in the later Acts of the Apostles which are not mentioned in segMark.

21. in gMatthew, Jesus claimed that people should be BAPTIZED for the Remission of Sins but the Pauline writer claimed it was the resurrection.

22. An Appologetic source claimed Paul wrote the Epistles AFTER Revelation by John.

There is MORE.

The abundance of evidence support the theory that the Pauline writer was aware of written sources of the Jesus story after composed his revelation gospel after segMark.

It is my duty to PRESENT the evidence in its Simplest form to show that ALL the books of the NT Canon are AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

EarlDoherty

I would prefer reading your own answers and explanations to the questions I pose above. Not that I think I would necessarily understand or accept them, but at least I would know that you had some sort of answer in your own mind.

How is the JC story followed by the Paul story something that is "given"?

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Its a given because that is the NT story.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no "NT story." There are the Gospels individually and there is Paul. There is no unifying narrative, or meta-narrative, just a collage of narratives and letters, not chapters of book. The NT is an artificial construction - a pile of related books, not a book unto itself or any kind of continuous narrative. For the most part the authors don't even have any awareness of each other, and not a single one of them ever heard of "the New Testament."

maryhelena

And yet they all agree on a crucified man being central to their thinking.....:huh:

Variations on a theme do not negate the basic premise.

Diogenes the Cynic

The fact that they believe this independently, without knowledge of each other, is what makes their agreement significant. We have at least 7 independent sources from the first century alone attesting to a belief in such a character, and it's further corroborated (the bare claim of a Palestinian Jewish crucifixion victim giving rise to Christianity) by Tacitus and probably Josephus in the 2nd Century.

This is better evidence than we have for a lot of other historical figures who existence we don't much question (say Judas the Maccabee, for instance), and there is nothing inherently implausible about it, so what's the problem?